By Xpike Go To Postemails
bengazi
protest vote
no way he wins so why go vote
etc
hope all those people are happy now
Apparently they are. This was on my feed yesterday.
Woah. I literally created that account to post pictures here and ppl are already angry about it.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostWe could honestly use more Manchins from red states
By KingGondo Go To PostAbsolutely.
The Blue Dog Dems got single payer nixed from Obamacare. What worth are they really again?
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe Blue Dog Dems got single payer nixed from Obamacare. What worth are they really again?
Because you need them for the other 90% of the Democratic agenda. Otherwise their seats are in Republican hands and you get 0% cooperation out of those seats, as opposed to 50-75% of the time. The same logic can be applied to Republican seats in swing districts.
Backstory: this woman has been in the US since age 14, is 36 now and has 2 American children.
She was arrested in a workplace raid ordered by Joe Arpaio in 2008 and had been checking in with ICE every six months. Only this time she was arrested and deported.
By Enron Go To PostBecause you need them for the other 90% of the Democratic agenda. Otherwise their seats are in Republican hands and you get 0% cooperation out of those seats, as opposed to 50-75% of the time. The same logic can be applied to Republican seats in swing districts.
They immediately got voted out of office the next election. Towing the moderate line literally got us nothing.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThey immediately got voted out of office the next election. Towing the moderate line literally got us nothing.Can you really call it that?
By DY_nasty Go To PostCan you really call it that?
That we got nothing or towing the moderate line?
By Fenderputty Go To PostThat we got nothing or towing the moderate line?The moderate bit. At least not surface level imo.
The point is you want to keep those seats as long as you can. not to get voted in once, go hardcore left for 2 years and then not hold that seat for another 20 years as a result. Politics is a long game.
Are you saying they weren't moderate at all, as in, they were purely conservative or purely liberal? And if so, which?
By Enron Go To PostThe point is you want to keep those seats as long as you can. not to get voted in once, go hardcore left for 2 years and then not hold that seat for another 20 years as a result. Politics is a long game.Or how about we find a way to vote in proper Democrats that aren't like Manchin in those red states?
By reilo Go To PostAre you saying they weren't moderate at all, as in, they were purely conservative or purely liberal? And if so, which?Not at all. I'm just thinking that what some call moderate on the left is not the same moderate from the right.
I really don't look back and see a lot of moderate line towing.
Not sure how else to label Manchin who is a pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-environment, hyper-pro coal, and pro-DADT "Democrat".
By reilo Go To PostNot sure how else to label Manchin who is a pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-environment, hyper-pro coal, and pro-DADT "Democrat".I wasn't talking about that. :/
By reilo Go To PostOh, well, then I am thoroughly confused what you're getting at.I'm not getting at anything, I just don't recognize the towing the moderate line bit.
reilo: because a proper democrat is going to be tough to vote in. Even harder for house seats. if your district is a swing district, the candidate is going to have to reflect the district as a whole otherwise they are going to get unseated.
I don't get the argument that "what we need is an even more Left/Right candidate" or a favorite one of Republicans, the old "He lost because he wasn't CONSERVATIVE enough" whenever a RINO-in-their-eyes loses an election. It's not like the other side is going to ever vote for your guy unless something is DREADFULLY wrong with their candidate. It's the voters in the middle that you are competing for.
That's why in swing districts you need Blue Dogs if you are a democrat, because at least they will stand with you most of the time, instead of NONE of the time.
I don't get the argument that "what we need is an even more Left/Right candidate" or a favorite one of Republicans, the old "He lost because he wasn't CONSERVATIVE enough" whenever a RINO-in-their-eyes loses an election. It's not like the other side is going to ever vote for your guy unless something is DREADFULLY wrong with their candidate. It's the voters in the middle that you are competing for.
That's why in swing districts you need Blue Dogs if you are a democrat, because at least they will stand with you most of the time, instead of NONE of the time.
By DY_nasty Go To PostThe moderate bit. At least not surface level imo.
Can you give me examples of Blue Dog Dems not being moderate? Their entire platform in centrism and bridging gaps between the left and right. So far I provided a perfect example of what I was talking about. Killing single payer. In fact, a GOP backed bill at the time included single payer (though to be fair it was garbage because it didn't include a mandate with it)
By Enron Go To PostThe point is you want to keep those seats as long as you can. not to get voted in once, go hardcore left for 2 years and then not hold that seat for another 20 years as a result. Politics is a long game.
The blue dog dems didn't go hardcore left and they were still voted out. That's my point. After a black man was voted in in 2008, democrats have been losing moderate seats in red states and it isn't because they're all super liberal.
By Enron Go To PostThat's why in swing districts you need Blue Dogs if you are a democrat, because at least they will stand with you most of the time, instead of NONE of the time.Given the list I posted above, what does Manchin stand with Democrats on? Those are basically all major issues he's sided against Democrats with: guns, abortion, environment, gay rights.
So, again, what does he side with Democrats on?
By Fenderputty Go To PostCan you give me examples of Blue Dog Dems not being moderate? Their entire platform in centrism and bridging gaps between the left and right. So far I provided a perfect example of what I was talking about. Killing single payer. In fact, a GOP backed bill at the time included single payer (though to be fair it was garbage because it didn't include a mandate with it)The bolded is what I just don't see.
The blue dog dems didn't go hardcore left and they were still voted out. That's my point. After a black man was voted in in 2008, democrats have been losing moderate seats in red states and it isn't because they're all super liberal.
to the rest... killing single payer is something most people don't even bother to understand and we all know that. I'd strain myself to call it a national issue even.
You keep saying you don't see them being centrist but you don't provide any evidence other than your feels, man.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shifts-in-voting-patterns-in-senate/
Saying "single payer" wasn't a national issue at the time is complete revisionist history as well. It was the leading topic of the election in 2008.
Look at what happened around 2008 too.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shifts-in-voting-patterns-in-senate/
Saying "single payer" wasn't a national issue at the time is complete revisionist history as well. It was the leading topic of the election in 2008.
Look at what happened around 2008 too.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx
They've recently spun it to say that Trump knew what the New START Treaty was, but he was asking for his aides' opinions on it.
Which isn't much better tbh. You should have an established policy position that has been discussed with your team on something as fundamental as a nuclear arms treaty with Russia.
Which isn't much better tbh. You should have an established policy position that has been discussed with your team on something as fundamental as a nuclear arms treaty with Russia.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostWe could honestly use more Manchins from red states
I used to think this way, but Heidi Heitkamp found the courage to say no to Sessions and so can Manchin.
Sure, he votes against the likes of Betsy DeVos and Tom Price from time to time. Might even vote for some minimum wage hikes too. But there are lines you cannot cross as a Dem and Jeff Sessions is one of them. Get him out the paint.
Just came to post about that heh. Unanimous 3-0 decision too. I hope he blasts about 1000 more tweets shitting on these Judges. Even Gorsuch was upset at his "so called judge" comments. See how many sitting Judges he can piss off.
lol. legit cackling at "SEE YOU IN COURT"
Saw this article on my feed today. Extremely good read, and a reminder that every time we don't live up to who we profess ourselves to be, whether it's Trump, or Bush, or Obama, or Clinton, there is a steep price to be paid.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/yemen-raid-trump-awlaki-al-qaeda-isis/516180/
Saw this article on my feed today. Extremely good read, and a reminder that every time we don't live up to who we profess ourselves to be, whether it's Trump, or Bush, or Obama, or Clinton, there is a steep price to be paid.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/yemen-raid-trump-awlaki-al-qaeda-isis/516180/
So i definitely have not been following this as closely as i should so forgive the dumb question. What legal basis are the courts using to uphold this stay? As far as i remember , the president can can limit any aliens from entering the U.S. and doesn't need to have .. well.. a good reason.
By diehard Go To PostSo i definitely have not been following this as closely as i should so forgive the dumb question. What legal basis are the courts using to uphold this stay? As far as i remember , the president can can limit any aliens from entering the U.S. and doesn't need to have .. well.. a good reason.
The court is arguing that he does need to have a good reason. Or rather, a reason that's better than "because he said so"
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostThe court is arguing that he does need to have a good reason. Or rather, a reason that's better than "because he said so"So it took them 65 years to find a law that they now think is unlawful?
By diehard Go To PostSo i definitely have not been following this as closely as i should so forgive the dumb question. What legal basis are the courts using to uphold this stay? As far as i remember , the president can can limit any aliens from entering the U.S. and doesn't need to have .. well.. a good reason.Trump admin a) showed up with no evidence and b) the court used Trump's noted usage of calling it a "Muslim ban" to deem it unconstitutional. Our constitution is pretty clear that we can't reject immigration based on religious grounds.
btw i edited that because the image wasn't showing up.. they did make a citation.
By reilo Go To PostTrump admin a) showed up with no evidence and b) the court used Trump's noted usage of calling it a "Muslim ban" to deem it unconstitutional. Our constitution is pretty clear that we can't reject immigration based on religious grounds.But .. where? I (possibly incorrectly) always thought the Constitution only applied to citizens.
By diehard Go To Postbtw i edited that because the image wasn't showing up.. they did make a citation.
But .. where? I (possibly incorrectly) always thought the Constitution only applied to citizens.
It doesn’t matter, by the way, whether the Muslims in question are citizens or noncitizens, green card holders, visa holders or refugees. The Equal Protection Clause explicitly prohibits “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court made this clear in Plyler v. Doe, when it protected the rights of non-citizen children in Texas, striking down a denial of school funds to the children of undocumented parents. This means that all foreign travelers on U.S. soil—those waiting at U.S. airports, for example—are protected.
Equal Protections Clause uses the word "Persons" instead of "Citizens" and there's precedent.
Isn't this all a moot point in the long run? What's to stop them from simply stop issuing VISA's to citizens of those countries?
I'm not advocating not fighting it.. just trying to get a better understanding.
I'm not advocating not fighting it.. just trying to get a better understanding.
By diehard Go To PostIsn't this all a moot point in the long run? What's to stop them from simply stop issuing VISA's to citizens of those countries?
I'm not advocating not fighting it.. just trying to get a better understanding.
None. Aside from Trump's wounded ego admitting to the fact his EO is a shoddily written piece of turd
The best wall Mexico will never pay for
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15O2ZN
Twice as much and almost twice as long just as ineffective
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15O2ZN
President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.
Twice as much and almost twice as long just as ineffective
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe best wall Mexico will never pay forIf it ever gets built it will be a fitting monument to this shameful era.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15O2ZN
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe best wall Mexico will never pay for
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15O2ZN
Twice as much and almost twice as long just as ineffective
Don't forget the millions a year for up keep....
By Zeus Ex Machina Go To PostDon't forget the millions a year for up keep….and all them jerbs papa trump will bless americans with
Wew
Incredibly tasteless, although he did issue an apology.
Not something that should've been said at all anyways.
By KingGondo Go To PostNbd, it's only the world's second largest economy
Trump finally agreed to stop fucking around with One China and now China is taking our calls again.
What a stupid and embarrassing and dangerous saga. Trump took infinite Ls from China in this situation while creating a lot of risk with no potential gain.
Holy shit ... Flynn lied about taking to Russia!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.f5debf19fd97
The admins already tossing him under the buss
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.f5debf19fd97
The admins already tossing him under the buss